^^ Or maybe I just made a funny remark that bounced off of Temis's comment. If mine was insulting, then I guess hers was worse, right?

Christopher wrote:

Do you bashers really not understand how obnoxious and mean-spirited it is to say things like that? You're not just insulting the movie, you're insulting the taste, judgment, and intelligence of those of us who did like the movie.

Wow. You mean that every time somebody points out that something really popular is really bad they're doing all those terrible things? I guess I'll like everything I see without question from now on so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

What I'm talking about is the differences in interpretation among the storytellers themselves. Even with the pretense of continuity, different Trek series and films represent different points of view, different interpretations of what that continuity is, how it fits together, what belongs to it and what doesn't (e.g. whether the animated series or certain movies should count), what the ground rules of the universe are (e.g. whether it's based in plausible science or wild technobabble), etc. Ultimately it's all filtered through the interpretations of different creative minds, even when they are pretending it all forms a coherent whole.

Of course. So what? In terms of Trek, all these different creators managed to be mostly consistent throughout the entire run. That's what creators should do when working with an established concept: Remain true to the concept while bringing something new to the table. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

JD wrote:

I know a lot of people hate Voyager, but First Contact? Really? For me FC is only behind the Abrams movie and Wrath of Kahn in my Trek movie rankings.

The Voyager finale was awful because of the timeline-changing plot-- something incredibly unethical that was treated as heroic. First Contact was decent for the last fifteen minutes or so, but prior to that was just a stupid, mindless zombie movie.